游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

阐述游戏乐趣vs.满足感的定义与区别

发布时间:2013-06-05 09:14:27 Tags:,,,

作者:psychochild

游戏应该有趣。当游戏中出现不怎么有趣的、应该删除的东西时,往往会得到玩家这样的评论。为什么游戏开发者会愚蠢到留下这种没人觉得有趣的系统呢?或者,为什么那些免费游戏中存在“花钱赢”的策略,迫使玩家付钱避开不怎么有趣的部分?

为什么游戏中存在表面上看起来没什么意思的东西呢?这是有原因的,因为那些部分往往是让玩家产生长期满足感的原因。我们来探讨一下游戏中的满足感及其重要性。

出于本文的目的,我认为读者不必纠结于我所说的“乐趣”的定义。我不打算正式地定义乐趣,因为那太难了。但我认为你的“乐趣”概念还不至于复杂到影响你理解我的论点。

fun(from spiritwomen)

fun(from spiritwomen)

单维度的评估

单纯地从“乐趣”层面来评估游戏的方方面面,会出现问题。即使你把乐趣当成一种持续状态,而不是一种二元状态,人们也总是想要“更多乐趣”,这似乎是自然而然的事。想象一下在某个电视广告上,有人问一群小孩“你想要更多还是更少的乐趣?”再想象他们会怎么回答。

Azuriel曾经发表关于“即时满足与乐趣投资”的文章,其中区分比较了能立即产生乐趣的东西和必须投入时间才能产生乐趣的东西。该文章认为,为了获得乐趣而在某事物上有所投入,这个某事物本身必须是有趣的。这个解释太过强调从单个层面看待“乐趣”。

我们以制作《Magic: the Gathering》的牌组为例。 Azuriel认为制作牌组是必要的,但仍是这个过程中有趣的部分。这个说法具有普遍的正确性吗?我认为,能从制作牌组中发现乐趣的玩家应该是喜欢这款游戏更长时间的人。预设牌组的存在表明,这个过程并非对所有人来说、在所有情况下都是有趣的;有时候你确实只想马上开始玩。

对我而言,制作牌组的部分乐趣来自在游戏中玩那个牌组的期望。对于以前没有玩过游戏(且没有看过指导手册)的人,虽然他可能喜欢牌组的美术设计,但我很怀疑他是否会不由自主地选择从制作牌组中寻找乐趣。再进一步推导:如果只允许某些人制作牌组而不让他们玩游戏,他们是否还会觉得那个过程有趣?有些人可能仍然觉得有趣,但我认为大部分人会觉得极其无聊。

是的,凡事总有例外。我喜欢收集RPG中的角色,即使我从来没有玩过他们。我喜欢探索我玩得并不怎么认真的游戏的系统。但是,像我这样的人毕竟只是少数。这就是为什么我想用另一种方式描述制作有趣的《Magic: the Gathering》牌组时的感受。

添加另一个维度

所以,为什么制作牌组对某些人来说是“有趣的”?我认为“满足感”就是答案。制作一个好的牌组是件技术活:需要知道如何玩这款游戏、如何组合牌、概率等等。制作牌组体现了对这些技术的精通程度,玩家在掌握这些技术中收获满足感。这还有另一个预期因素在起作用:想像你释放一种牌组时会发生什么事,以及抽牌时如何壮观。

当你在实际的游戏中玩这个牌组时,你会产生连续的满足感。如果你做的牌组很好,那么你会因为它丰富了玩法而感到更加满足。我认为这种满足感与玩游戏过程中产生的乐趣是不同的,但又存在密切的联系。

为了更加清楚地看到满足感的作用,请考虑以下三种情况:第一,给你有限的、随机的牌制作牌组;第二,你可以使用任何牌来制作牌组;第三,给你一个预制好的、能获胜的牌组,不允许你做任何调整。然后,你开始玩游戏,并且你在这三种情况下都取胜了。哪一种情形会让你得到最大的满足感?对我而言,这三种情况对我的技术要求越高,我从中得到的满足感就越大。越是让人产生满足感的情形就要求玩家付出越多努力。

尽管与“乐趣”一样,每个人对“满足感”的定义都有所不同。也许有人更乐意得到无数张牌,而不是有限的牌。或者在RPG中,我可能从有序的任务中找到满足感,而有些人则认为那是多余的工作。你可能因为短时间内升到最高级而感到满足,而我认为那是过分追求结果,而享受不了过程。还是那句话,一个标准并非处处适用。

短期vs.长期

对大部分人而言,乐趣往往稍纵即逝,但满足感却长久存在。想像一下在某种活动中,你感到有趣,但并没有产生太多满足感。我们假设你是在和一些朋友玩一款桌面游戏,但没有激烈的竞争或确定的胜利。玩这款游戏你可能会觉得有趣,但第二天,你可能并不会记得太多细节:“是啊,很有趣。”一周以后,你所谓的“有趣”很可能已经对你的生活毫无意义了。至多,你期望再次体验到那种“有趣”罢了。

现在再想象在另一种活动中,你不觉得有趣,但感到非常满足。显然,这种活动就像大学毕业一样成为你的人生里程碑,朝目标前进的过程虽然不太有趣,但往往让你产生强烈的满足感。再举一个更详细的例子:写一篇帮助巩固游戏设计概念的博文。书写过程可能会有趣,但与玩《边境之地2》相比,有趣程度就差多了。但是,哪一件事能让我记得更牢:是在《边境之地2》中捡到新奇武器那一瞬间的多巴胺分泌导致的快乐,还是最终把某些游戏设计理论整理成文字时产生的满足感?肯定是后者。

人们在不同的时期会有不同的渴望。有时候,你就是想暂时关闭大脑,享受一下不费脑细胞的乐趣。又有时候,你希望体验一些更有深度、更有意义、更令人满足的东西。不能说哪一种东西绝对更好,但我认为好游戏应该同时提供乐趣和满足感。然而,你必须理解,让人产生满足感的东西可能并不如其他活动来得“有趣”,而那些其他活动也可能不太让人满足。

所以,我认为满足感解释了,为什么当必须做一些短期内不能最大化乐趣的事情时,人们会追求所谓的“长期的乐趣”——它其实不是我们所说的长期的乐趣,而是满足感。

satisfaction(from mindco-consulting)

satisfaction(from mindco-consulting)

满足感vs.成就感

满足感似乎是成就感的同义词。我认为二者是相关的,但仍然代表稍许不同的情绪。成就感需要主体得到外部承认才能产生。根据Bartle提出的四种玩家类型,我们知道得到认同对于成就者来说是非常重要的。这就是为什么在网络游戏和游戏机越来越多的今天,游戏中的成就系统却越来越形式化。我认为成就感也是刺激人们玩现代MMO的原因,这些游戏迎合了成就者和羡慕成就者的其他玩家。

相反地,满足感是内源性的。我可以做一些永远不会有人看到的事,但仍然对结果产生满足感。所以,即使没有人读我的这篇文章,我还是会因为增长了自己的游戏设计知识而感到满足(我把这篇文章放在博客上不是为了刷浏览量,而是想看看其他人对我的概念有何反应,以及进一步完善我的想法)。满足感通常与达成个人目标更有关系,而不是外部认可。

不过,满足感和成就感之间存在有趣的互动关系。成就者对自己取得的成就感到满足,因为他知道会得到别人的赞誉和认可。有些人为了个人满足感而做某事,当其他人赞扬他的举动时,惊喜之余,满足感也变成成就感了。

MMO中的满足感

所以,满足感这个概念与MMO有什么关系?二者的关系正解释了为什么某些人认为“无趣”的活动,却成为另一些人的核心体验。

MMO的多玩家属性确实使满足感的概念更加复杂了。正如我在前面提到的,某人觉得让自己满足的东西不一定能让所有人产生满足感。比如,知道一条通向地下城入口的捷径可以让我产生极大的满足感。或者,我可能觉得组队慢慢寻找地下城的入口、一起杀BOSS、沿途捡道具更让我满意。然而,你可能觉得那些事太无聊了,还是直奔地下城秒杀BOSS然后走人来得爽快。如果游戏引入一种类似“最晚完成时间”的设定,慢慢摸索地下城入口的活动可能就不再让我产生满足感了,同时会减少我对该游戏的兴趣。

在之前的文章中,我提到,MMO必须重视社交元素,以便吸引玩家长期留在游戏世界中。正如其他人指出的,等待组队是件特别无聊的事。当做某事需要像组织一次突击活动那样有序时,某事就会让人觉得像强制的义务。但是,成为团体中的得利干将会让人产生某种满足感。知道你帮助你的公会最终战胜BOSS会让你产生满足感,足以抵消连续几个晚上打BOSS的沉闷。

或者,想一想可怕的“刷任务”。虽然许多人认为重复性活动不能产生乐趣,但它却可以让人产生满足感。知道你强大到足以承受原版《无尽的任务》中的“炼狱级”难度。知道你可以挣到足够的钱资助你的突袭行动。知道你自己很聪明,通过不断检查各个角落缝隙就能发现游戏中的秘密。这些重复性活动可以让人产生满足感,即使在这个过程中你并不觉得有趣。

最后举一个例子,想一想简单化游戏,或者你也可以称之为“傻瓜化游戏”的趋势。虽然降低游戏难度可以使玩家更快找到“有趣”的部分,但却是以损失满足感为代价的。回想一下我培养的《Meridian 59》的角色,与我升级的《激战2》的角色相比,我觉得培养M59的角色更让我感到满足。在M59中,决定角色培养的方向是有一定风险的,而在《激战2》中升级角色就没有这种风险。

满足感的危机

将乐趣与满足感区别开来,可以解释某些现你MMO失败的原因。简单化游戏使有些人更快找到“乐趣”,但也导致一些人在游戏中的满足感减少了。《WOW》仍然是一款有趣的游戏,但我认为对许多人来说,它并不能让人长久地满足,所以玩家会越来越少。有些游戏挪用了以前的MMO中的有趣元素,却没有继承其能让玩家产生满足感的元素;这些游戏要保持玩家的兴趣,必须增加能让人产生满足感的元素。

读者们有什么想法呢?你同意乐趣和满足感是两种不同的情绪吗?你能区分你玩MMO时体验到的是乐趣还是满足感吗?使玩法更加令人满足的元素是否存在共性?(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Fun vs. satisfaction

by psychochild

Games are supposed to be fun, duh. It seems to be a regular comment that if something isn’t fun, it should be removed from a game. Why are game developers so stupid to leave in systems that nobody finds fun? Or, just look at those EEEEEVIL free-to-play games with their “pay to win” strategies, forcing people to pay money to avoid the parts that aren’t fun, amirite?

Except, there’s a good reason why games have parts that don’t seem fun on the surface, but that build a long-term feeling of satisfaction. Let’s take a look at satisfaction and why it matters in games.

For this post, I’ll assume an unstated, informal definition of “fun”. I won’t try to formally define fun, since that’s tough to do. But, I think your specific definition of “fun” that isn’t too esoteric won’t detract from my point.
Measuring on one dimension

Trying to measure everything in a game solely through the lens of “fun” leads to problems. Even if you look at it as a continuum instead of a binary setting, it seems natural that a person should always want “more fun”. Just imagine one of those TV commercials where someone asks a group of kids “do you want more or less fun?” and imagine the answers.

Azuriel over at In An Age posted about Instant Gratification vs Fun Investment, drawing a distinction between something that’s fun immediately vs. something that you have to invest time in that leads to fun later. The post argues that even things you invest in to have fun should be fun in and of themselves. This explanation relies too heavily on looking through the single perspective of “fun”.

Let’s take a look at the example of building a deck to play Magic: the Gathering (MtG). Azuriel argues deck building is a necessary but still fun part of the process, but is that universally true? I think it’s likely that people who do find deck-building fun are the ones who stuck with MtG longer. The existence of pre-constructed decks show that deck building isn’t always fun for everyone in all situations; sometimes you do just want to get in and play.

To me, part of the enjoyment from building a deck comes from the anticipation of playing that deck in a game. Give someone who hasn’t played before a bunch of cards (and no instruction booklet), and while that person might enjoy looking at the art, I doubt they’ll spontaneously decide to build a deck for enjoyment. Take this one step further: give that person rules for how to build a deck but deny them the ability to play the game; would they find that process fun? Some might, but I think you’d get a lot of people who would find that process particularly unfun.

Yes, there are exceptions. I love rolling up characters for RPGs, even if I’ll never play them. I like exploring the mechanics of a game I might not play in earnest. But, people like me are in the minority. This is why I want another way to describe the feeling when constructing an interesting MtG deck.

Adding a second dimension

So, why is deck building “fun” for some people? I think “satisfaction” may be a better term than “fun”. Building a good deck requires skill: knowing how to play the game, knowing how cards work in conjunction, knowing probability, etc. Building a deck expresses of mastery over these skills, and a player can feel satisfied having mastered them. There’s also an element of anticipation: thinking what happens when you get one of the card combos set up and can pull it off spectacularly.

There’s also the continuing satisfaction of when you play the deck in an actual game. If you have done a good job in building the deck, then it enhances the gameplay and you feel greater satisfaction for constructing a deck that performs well. I think this sense of satisfaction is separate from, but very much related to, the fun had while actually playing the game.

To see the role of satisfaction more clearly, consider three scenarios. First, you are given a limited, random supply of MtG cards to make a deck. Second, you are given access to any MtG cards you want to build a deck. In the final scenario, you are given a champion’s pre-constructed deck and allowed no modifications. You then play a game of MtG and win in each of these scenarios. Which scenario gives you the most satisfaction? To me, the more input I have and the more skill required, the more satisfied I am. The more satisfying situation is the one that requires the most effort.

Although, like “fun” there’s no one universal definition of what is “satisfying” to someone. Maybe someone would be just as satisfied with unlimited cards rather than being limited. Or, in RPGs, I might find satisfaction in a well-organized inventory, whereas someone else sees that as unnecessary busywork. You might think getting to max level in a short period of time is satisfying, where I see that as focusing on the destination rather than the journey. To repeat the cliché, one size doesn’t fit all.

Short-term vs. long-term

Fun tends to be fleeting, but satisfaction lingers for most people. Imagine a situation where you have fun, but where you don’t have a lot of satisfaction. Let’s say you play a board game with some friends, but there’s no deep rivalry or decisive victories. You might have fun playing the game, but the next day you might not remember many of the details beyond, “yeah, it was fun.” A week later the fun you had is unlikely to be meaningful to your life. The most likely outcome is that you look forward to having fun again.

Now consider a situation where you didn’t have fun, but experienced intense satisfaction. Obviously there are major life landmarks, like graduation, that tend to be satisfying but not especially fun while you’re going working to the goal. But, consider a smaller situation like writing a blog post that helps cement a game design concept that’s been bouncing around in my head. Sure, writing can be fun, but I could be playing Borderlands 2 right now which is a lot more fun that writing this. ;) But, which am I likely to remember better: that jolt of dopamine from picking up a strange new weapon in Borderlands 2, or the satisfaction of explaining out a few theory of game deign I’ve finally been able to articulate into words? I’d put my money on the latter.

People will want different things at different times. Sometimes you just want to shut off your brain and have some mindless fun. Other times you want something deeper, more meaningful, and satisfying. Neither is universally “better”, but I think a great game provides both. However, it’s also important to understand that some satisfying things may not be as “fun” as other activities, but those other activities may end up being less satisfying.

So, I think satisfaction explains some of the reasons why people put stock into “long-term fun” when it requires doing things that aren’t the maximum amount of fun in the short-term; it’s not really long-term fun we’re talking about, but satisfaction.

Satisfaction vs. achievement

It might seem like satisfaction is a synonym for achievement. I think they are related, but slightly different emotions. Achievement is something that requires external validation. Achievers are one of Bartle’s four types of players, and we have come to realize that it’s important to Achievers to be recognized for their achievements. This is the reason why achievements in games became formalized when we had more networked games and game consoles. I think this is also a motivation for why people play modern MMOs, these games cater to achievers and the other players are a knowledgeable audience who will appreciate your achievements more.

Satisfaction, on the other hand, is internal. I can do something that nobody else will ever see, and be satisfied with the results. Even if nobody read this blog post, I’d have the satisfaction of having developed some of my own game design tools. (I’m posting this on my blog not necessarily to get a high score in number of views or comments, but to get insight into how others react to my concepts and to refine my ideas.) Satisfaction usually has more to do with accomplishing a personal goal than with external validation.

Although, these two concepts an interact in interesting ways. An achiever might feel satisfied with an accomplishment because he or she knows that recognition will follow. Someone doing something for their own personal satisfaction might be pleasantly surprised when others laud their action and it becomes an achievement.

Satisfaction in MMOs

So, how does the concept of satisfaction relate to MMOs? There are a few ways that explain why activities that some people find “unfun” others find the core of the experience.

The multiplayer nature of MMOs really makes satisfaction tricky. As I said above, what one person finds satisfying isn’t necessarily universal. I might find it very satisfying to know an efficient route to get to a dungeon entrance quickly. Or, I might find it satisfying to meander to a dungeon entrance with a group, killing monsters and harvesting resources along the way. You, however, might find it dreadfully boring and want to just get to the dungeon, get your loot, and scram. Once the game introduces an efficiency like an LFD tool, I will likely no longer get the satisfaction from traveling to the dungeon entrance, reducing my interest in the game.

In a previous post, I argue that MMOs need to re-focus on social elements to promote long-term retention in games. As people love to point out, it’s not particularly compelling to wait for groups to form. It can feel like an obligation when doing something organized like raiding. But, there’s a certain sense of satisfaction in being a productive member of a group. Knowing that you helped your guild finally conquer that raid boss gives a sense of satisfaction that can balance if not outweigh the nights of wiping against that boss.

Or, consider the dreaded grind. While many people don’t see repetitive activity as fun, it can bring satisfaction. Knowing that you’re tough enough to endure a “hell level” in the original EQ1. Knowing that you’re capable enough to earn money to fund your raiding. Knowing that you’re clever enough to ferret out the well-kept secrets in a game by checking every nook and cranny. These repetitive activities can feel satisfying even if they don’t feel very fun while you’re in the middle of the process.

As a last example, consider the trend of making games easier. Or “dumbing down”, if you prefer. Looking at this in terms of satisfaction shows that while making a game easier can make it faster to find the “fun” parts, it feels less satisfying. Thinking back on the Meridian 59 characters I’ve built compared to the Guild Wars 2 characters I’ve leveled, I have felt a lot more satisfaction building the M59 characters. In M59, there’s a real element of risk involved that isn’t present in building a character in GW2.
A crisis of satisfaction

This separation of fun from satisfaction explains some of the failings of modern MMOs. Streamlining has let some get to the “fun” faster, but it has lead to less satisfying games for others. WoW is still a fun game, but I think for a lot of people it’s less satisfying and therefore losing subscribers. Other games that copy the fun elements of previous MMOs but don’t examine the satisfying elements are only getting it part right. They need the satisfying elements to keep people interested.

What do you think? Do you agree that fun and satisfaction are two separate emotions? Do you recognize the experiences you had in MMOs as being fun vs. being satisfying? Is there some common element that makes a gameplay element satisfying?(source:psychochild)


上一篇:

下一篇: